Just after the New Year, President Obama will have to decide a whether to take a dramatic, high-stakes gamble on a very unsexy topic: a U.S.-EU free trade agreement. It will be one of the key high-risk, high-reward choices of his second term.

By removing all barriers on goods and by facilitating fairer and more transparent competition in services, investment, and public procurement, such an agreement could stimulate growth and increase jobs in the world's two largest economies, which together comprise more than 50 percent of the world's GDP.

Such economic benefits could occur without any additional government expenditure. An agreement could provide a needed, long-lasting jolt to the ailing economies on both sides of the Atlantic. It could avoid the dilemmas posed by the current policy choice between austerity at a time of anemic growth and stimulus at a time of fiscal disarray.

A high-level working group formed a year ago and made up of U.S. and EU officials is likely to recommend later this month that formal free-trade talks begin immediately. Already, European officials like British Prime Minister David Cameron, German Chancellor Angela Merkel, and various worthies at the European Commission have called upon President Obama to approve formal U.S.-EU trade negotiations.

But the risks for Obama are significant. Ideas to reduce barriers to U.S.-EU trade have bounced back and forth across the Atlantic for decades, with few results. Topics like harmonizing health, safety, and other regulations and reducing other national or regional preferences for trade in goods, services, investment, and procurement are still contentious. Such a free-trade agreement must be a key administration foreign policy priority if it is to succeed (as NAFTA was), at a time when other parts of the globe and other global issues are clamoring for attention. And even if they have priority status, formal talks hardly are guaranteed success (as shown in the stalled Doha Round of world trade negotiations).

The case for such talks begins with the potent existing relationship between the U.S. and EU economies -- a fact sometimes forgotten when all eyes are on China rising.

The flow of goods, services, and investment back and forth across the Atlantic accounts for one-third of global trade ($2 billion a day). In 2011, the U.S. sold three times more goods to the EU ($286 billion) than to China, and the EU sold two times more goods to the U.S. ($368 billion) than to China. In 2010, the US had $1.9 trillion of foreign direct investment in the EU, and the EU had $1.5 trillion of foreign direct investment in the U.S. Fifty percent of U.S. overseas direct investment goes to the EU and 75 percent of EU overseas direct investment goes to the U.S. Direct employment by U.S. businesses in the EU, and EU business in the U.S., total close to 8 million, not including multiplier effects.

In general terms, the list of potential benefits from such an agreement is impressive, , depending, of course, on how much of the trade and investment agenda is actually addressed.

The economic consequences of such an agreement could be significant. A free-trade agreement could add half a percent to annual GDP growth in both the U.S. and EU. The elimination of all tariffs and halving of regulatory, non-tariff barriers could mean an additional $250 billion in economic activity in the EU and $150 billion in the US. Job creation could number in the hundreds of thousands. And because so much transatlantic trade is between subsidiaries of single companies as part of supply chains, an agreement could lower costs and make those companies stronger global competitors against newer multinationals from emerging markets.

From a foreign-policy perspective, a free-trade agreement would signal to Europe that it remains a critical element in the American world view, at a time when America's public attention has been focused elsewhere. It would create and stimulate a powerful economic alliance at a time when international economics is an ever more vital component of national security. As such, it could act as a collective counter-weight to the growing economic influence of China: at present, the combined U.S./EU economies are almost three times bigger than China (US $15 trillion: EU $17 trillion; China $12 trillion). And, were the Obama administration to be successful in both a free-trade agreement with the EU and its current efforts to negotiate a Transpacific Partnership on trade, it could significantly shape the international economy for years to come.

A U.S.-EU free trade agreement could set influential transatlantic standards on a variety of regulatory fronts which, while hardly front-page news, are critical to maintaining effective international competition and are now the source of endless friction across the world. Standards in the areas of regulation of goods, services, investment, and procurement would help influence movement towards world regulatory standards (just as the recent U.S.-South Korea free trade agreement is viewed as state of the art).

From a political perspective, the stars may be aligned on a complex transatlantic enterprise that has seen many false dawns. Republicans and business groups are, of course, generally in favor of an agreement. Labor groups on both continents and also left-center political parties have also made favorable noises about launching a formal negotiation, because of the potential stimulative effects and because the U.S. and EU have comparable wages and conditions for workers. Moreover, recent public opinion polls in the U.S. have consistently indicated a favorable view of trade with Europe, even as doubts about free trade generally have grown.

These positive general arguments run up against the realities of detailed negotiations at a time when poor economic conditions are stimulating national and regional protectionism, not economic liberalization for free markets, and at a time when the EU is struggling over the shape of a common set of monetary and fiscal policies. Arguments in favor of a free-trade agreement also have to overcome persistent, high-visibilitydisputes between the U.S. and the EU. These include: the EU's resistance to genetically modified food and to hormone-treated beef; the U.S.'s "Buy American" procurement rules; agriculture on both sides of the Atlantic (U.S. subsidies and EU tariffs); endless debates about which region is unfairly subsidizing aircraft development (Boeing v. Airbus); U.S. refusal to allow foreign ownership in maritime and aviation industries; the EU's stricter rules about privacy.

Any U.S.-EU negotiation would put these specific hotspots into a comprehensive framework. Trade experts see a phased, across-the-board reduction of remaining tariffs (averaging about 5-7 percent, although much higher for some products) as an achievable goal.

But critical parts of the framework would involve detailed sector-by-sector attempts to reduce regulatory differences and other preferences that impede trade and investment. For example, trade in goods has specific regulatory barriers in autos, chemicals, drugs, electronics, and electrical machinery. Trade in services is critical, accounting for approximately 75 percent of GDP in both the U.S. and EU. But, again, an agreement would have to harmonize or at least create greater convergence in parochial approaches relating, for example, to financial services, transportation, express mail delivery, telecommunications, wholesale and retail trade, and professional services. Opening public procurement to foreign tenders would mean addressing rules that, for political purposes, effectively bar such bidding. All these issues would entail hard, detailed slogging backed up by the political will from leaders on both sides of the Atlantic to get it done.

One of the first critical political decisions will be to define a number of issues that are doable. Another will be to define terms of negotiation that are broad enough to achieve both economic and foreign policy benefits. And another will be the end date of negotiations. Some talk about 2014 or 2015. But that would still leave the complex politics of approval by both houses of Congress in the U.S. and by the institutions of the EU that are directly responsive to the 27 member states such as the Council of Ministers and the EU Parliament.

President Obama has a critical decision ahead of him about whether to make one his few second-term priorities a risky decision to seek a U.S.-EU trade agreement. If successful, this decision could have the reward, in the recent words of Secretary of State Clinton, of shoring up "our global competitiveness for the next century, creating jobs and generating hundreds of billions of dollars for our economies" and addressing the core of our national security -- "the economic future on both sides of the Atlantic."

Maybe President Obama will start this high risk-high reward process, get a negotiated agreement, but not get Congressional approval before the 2016 election cycle. Then, ironically, it could be left to a newly elected President Clinton to fight a U.S.-EU Free Trade Agreement through Congress in 2017 -- just as her husband had to fight NAFTA though Congress in 1994.

About the Author

Ben Heineman Jr. is is a senior fellow at the Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, in Harvard's Kennedy School of Government, and at the Harvard Law School's Program on Corporate Governance. He is the author of High Performance With High Integrity.

Most Popular

Writing used to be a solitary profession. How did it become so interminably social?

Whether we’re behind the podium or awaiting our turn, numbing our bottoms on the chill of metal foldout chairs or trying to work some life into our terror-stricken tongues, we introverts feel the pain of the public performance. This is because there are requirements to being a writer. Other than being a writer, I mean. Firstly, there’s the need to become part of the writing “community”, which compels every writer who craves self respect and success to attend community events, help to organize them, buzz over them, and—despite blitzed nerves and staggering bowels—present and perform at them. We get through it. We bully ourselves into it. We dose ourselves with beta blockers. We drink. We become our own worst enemies for a night of validation and participation.

Even when a dentist kills an adored lion, and everyone is furious, there’s loftier righteousness to be had.

Now is the point in the story of Cecil the lion—amid non-stop news coverage and passionate social-media advocacy—when people get tired of hearing about Cecil the lion. Even if they hesitate to say it.

But Cecil fatigue is only going to get worse. On Friday morning, Zimbabwe’s environment minister, Oppah Muchinguri, called for the extradition of the man who killed him, the Minnesota dentist Walter Palmer. Muchinguri would like Palmer to be “held accountable for his illegal action”—paying a reported $50,000 to kill Cecil with an arrow after luring him away from protected land. And she’s far from alone in demanding accountability. This week, the Internet has served as a bastion of judgment and vigilante justice—just like usual, except that this was a perfect storm directed at a single person. It might be called an outrage singularity.

Forget credit hours—in a quest to cut costs, universities are simply asking students to prove their mastery of a subject.

MANCHESTER, Mich.—Had Daniella Kippnick followed in the footsteps of the hundreds of millions of students who have earned university degrees in the past millennium, she might be slumping in a lecture hall somewhere while a professor droned. But Kippnick has no course lectures. She has no courses to attend at all. No classroom, no college quad, no grades. Her university has no deadlines or tenure-track professors.

Instead, Kippnick makes her way through different subject matters on the way to a bachelor’s in accounting. When she feels she’s mastered a certain subject, she takes a test at home, where a proctor watches her from afar by monitoring her computer and watching her over a video feed. If she proves she’s competent—by getting the equivalent of a B—she passes and moves on to the next subject.

The Wall Street Journal’s eyebrow-raising story of how the presidential candidate and her husband accepted cash from UBS without any regard for the appearance of impropriety that it created.

The Swiss bank UBS is one of the biggest, most powerful financial institutions in the world. As secretary of state, Hillary Clinton intervened to help it out with the IRS. And after that, the Swiss bank paid Bill Clinton $1.5 million for speaking gigs. TheWall Street Journal reported all that and more Thursday in an article that highlights huge conflicts of interest that the Clintons have created in the recent past.

The piece begins by detailing how Clinton helped the global bank.

“A few weeks after Hillary Clinton was sworn in as secretary of state in early 2009, she was summoned to Geneva by her Swiss counterpart to discuss an urgent matter. The Internal Revenue Service was suing UBS AG to get the identities of Americans with secret accounts,” the newspaper reports. “If the case proceeded, Switzerland’s largest bank would face an impossible choice: Violate Swiss secrecy laws by handing over the names, or refuse and face criminal charges in U.S. federal court. Within months, Mrs. Clinton announced a tentative legal settlement—an unusual intervention by the top U.S. diplomat. UBS ultimately turned over information on 4,450 accounts, a fraction of the 52,000 sought by the IRS.”

There’s no way this man could be president, right? Just look at him: rumpled and scowling, bald pate topped by an entropic nimbus of white hair. Just listen to him: ranting, in his gravelly Brooklyn accent, about socialism. Socialism!

And yet here we are: In the biggest surprise of the race for the Democratic presidential nomination, this thoroughly implausible man, Bernie Sanders, is a sensation.

He is drawing enormous crowds—11,000 in Phoenix, 8,000 in Dallas, 2,500 in Council Bluffs, Iowa—the largest turnout of any candidate from any party in the first-to-vote primary state. He has raised $15 million in mostly small donations, to Hillary Clinton’s $45 million—and unlike her, he did it without holding a single fundraiser. Shocking the political establishment, it is Sanders—not Martin O’Malley, the fresh-faced former two-term governor of Maryland; not Joe Biden, the sitting vice president—to whom discontented Democratic voters looking for an alternative to Clinton have turned.

During the multi-country press tour for Mission Impossible: Rogue Nation, not even Jon Stewart has dared ask Tom Cruise about Scientology.

During the media blitz for Mission Impossible: Rogue Nation over the past two weeks, Tom Cruise has seemingly been everywhere. In London, he participated in a live interview at the British Film Institute with the presenter Alex Zane, the movie’s director, Christopher McQuarrie, and a handful of his fellow cast members. In New York, he faced off with Jimmy Fallon in a lip-sync battle on The Tonight Show and attended the Monday night premiere in Times Square. And, on Tuesday afternoon, the actor recorded an appearance on The Daily Show With Jon Stewart, where he discussed his exercise regimen, the importance of a healthy diet, and how he still has all his own hair at 53.

Stewart, who during his career has won two Peabody Awards for public service and the Orwell Award for “distinguished contribution to honesty and clarity in public language,” represented the most challenging interviewer Cruise has faced on the tour, during a challenging year for the actor. In April, HBO broadcast Alex Gibney’s documentary Going Clear, a film based on the book of the same title by Lawrence Wright exploring the Church of Scientology, of which Cruise is a high-profile member. The movie alleges, among other things, that the actor personally profited from slave labor (church members who were paid 40 cents an hour to outfit the star’s airplane hangar and motorcycle), and that his former girlfriend, the actress Nazanin Boniadi, was punished by the Church by being forced to do menial work after telling a friend about her relationship troubles with Cruise. For Cruise “not to address the allegations of abuse,” Gibney said in January, “seems to me palpably irresponsible.” But in The Daily Show interview, as with all of Cruise’s other appearances, Scientology wasn’t mentioned.

An attack on an American-funded military group epitomizes the Obama Administration’s logistical and strategic failures in the war-torn country.

Last week, the U.S. finally received some good news in Syria:.After months of prevarication, Turkey announced that the American military could launch airstrikes against Islamic State positions in Syria from its base in Incirlik. The development signaled that Turkey, a regional power, had at last agreed to join the fight against ISIS.

The announcement provided a dose of optimism in a conflict that has, in the last four years, killed over 200,000 and displaced millions more. Days later, however, the positive momentum screeched to a halt. Earlier this week, fighters from the al-Nusra Front, an Islamist group aligned with al-Qaeda, reportedly captured the commander of Division 30, a Syrian militia that receives U.S. funding and logistical support, in the countryside north of Aleppo. On Friday, the offensive escalated: Al-Nusra fighters attacked Division 30 headquarters, killing five and capturing others. According to Agence France Presse, the purpose of the attack was to obtain sophisticated weapons provided by the Americans.

The Islamic State is no mere collection of psychopaths. It is a religious group with carefully considered beliefs, among them that it is a key agent of the coming apocalypse. Here’s what that means for its strategy—and for how to stop it.

What is the Islamic State?

Where did it come from, and what are its intentions? The simplicity of these questions can be deceiving, and few Western leaders seem to know the answers. In December, The New York Times published confidential comments by Major General Michael K. Nagata, the Special Operations commander for the United States in the Middle East, admitting that he had hardly begun figuring out the Islamic State’s appeal. “We have not defeated the idea,” he said. “We do not even understand the idea.” In the past year, President Obama has referred to the Islamic State, variously, as “not Islamic” and as al-Qaeda’s “jayvee team,” statements that reflected confusion about the group, and may have contributed to significant strategic errors.

Some say the so-called sharing economy has gotten away from its central premise—sharing.

This past March, in an up-and-coming neighborhood of Portland, Maine, a group of residents rented a warehouse and opened a tool-lending library. The idea was to give locals access to everyday but expensive garage, kitchen, and landscaping tools—such as chainsaws, lawnmowers, wheelbarrows, a giant cider press, and soap molds—to save unnecessary expense as well as clutter in closets and tool sheds.

The residents had been inspired by similar tool-lending libraries across the country—in Columbus, Ohio; in Seattle, Washington; in Portland, Oregon. The ethos made sense to the Mainers. “We all have day jobs working to make a more sustainable world,” says Hazel Onsrud, one of the Maine Tool Library’s founders, who works in renewable energy. “I do not want to buy all of that stuff.”

A controversial treatment shows promise, especially for victims of trauma.

It’s straight out of a cartoon about hypnosis: A black-cloaked charlatan swings a pendulum in front of a patient, who dutifully watches and ping-pongs his eyes in turn. (This might be chased with the intonation, “You are getting sleeeeeepy...”)

Unlike most stereotypical images of mind alteration—“Psychiatric help, 5 cents” anyone?—this one is real. An obscure type of therapy known as EMDR, or Eye Movement Desensitization and Reprocessing, is gaining ground as a potential treatment for people who have experienced severe forms of trauma.

Here’s the idea: The person is told to focus on the troubling image or negative thought while simultaneously moving his or her eyes back and forth. To prompt this, the therapist might move his fingers from side to side, or he might use a tapping or waving of a wand. The patient is told to let her mind go blank and notice whatever sensations might come to mind. These steps are repeated throughout the session.